the Confederate states and most of the rest of their forces didn't surrender until about a month later. That would be when the war ended

really ??
then i would suppose the Confederate Navy wouldn't count in your mind, right ?
black freemen in Confederate Navy: www.calebstriumph.com...

Tucker’s Brigade was the only Confederate unit that didn’t break under the first Federal charge at the Battle of Saylor’s Creek. After
repulsing the charge, the Brigade – numbering 300 to 400 men, was surrounded by six Union divisions. Tucker would not surrender and counterattacked,
smashing the 37th Massachusetts Infantry into fragments and tearing into the 2nd Rhode Island in hand to hand combat.
- snip -
Many of his men escaped to rejoin the Army of Northern Virginia. Cleaper, Hicks and Johnson were among those who managed to escape and were with the
remnants of Tucker’s Brigade when Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House.

i think there is MUCH you don't know but should make every
effort to learn.

and surrender generally marks the end of any battle or war.
but don't tell that to the Confederate Navy cause they didn't concede til later August 1865. richmondthenandnow.com...

the Confederate states and most of the rest of their forces didn't surrender until about a month later. That would be when the war ended

really ??
then i would suppose the Confederate Navy wouldn't count in your mind, right ?
black freemen in Confederate Navy: www.calebstriumph.com...

Tucker’s Brigade was the only Confederate unit that didn’t break under the first Federal charge at the Battle of Saylor’s Creek. After
repulsing the charge, the Brigade – numbering 300 to 400 men, was surrounded by six Union divisions. Tucker would not surrender and counterattacked,
smashing the 37th Massachusetts Infantry into fragments and tearing into the 2nd Rhode Island in hand to hand combat.
- snip -
Many of his men escaped to rejoin the Army of Northern Virginia. Cleaper, Hicks and Johnson were among those who managed to escape and were with the
remnants of Tucker’s Brigade when Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House.

i think there is MUCH you don't know but should make every
effort to learn.

and surrender generally marks the end of any battle or war.
but don't tell that to the Confederate Navy cause they didn't concede til later August 1865. richmondthenandnow.com...

Nice. Now you're undermining your own claims, somehow thinking that they undermine my points. You made light of my stating that Lincoln died before
the end of the war by your citing of Lee's surrender. But now you are admitting that Lincoln did die significantly before the very end of
hostilities. Also I wrote that the Confederate states surrendered in May, along with "most of the rest of their forces." I didn't claim all of
their forces, and my point was not about the exact time line of surrender of all the Confederate forces, but only that Lincoln died before the end of
the war. YOU SERIOUSLY HAVE A HARD TIME FOLLOWING A LINE OF REASONING.

And to try to win your inane arguments, you bring up spurious points, and try to twist matters. For instance, when did I say that no blacks fought
for the Confederacy? Yet, you make an issue of this in your post. For the record, my understanding is that blacks were not allowed under arms in the
Confederacy until March, 1865, out of pure desperation on the South's part. As for the Confederate Navy, any attempt to claim that it was a
significant force in 1865 is just downright laughable. I don't dispute they still had some blockade runners and possibly a few warships, but to
suggest that because the last remnants of it didn't surrender until Aug. 1865, my statement that the Confederacy and the bulk of its forces
surrendered by May 1865 is incorrect just shows what lame sophistry you will stoop to in an attempt to win an argument that you have already clearly
lost.

Yes, official hostilities were formally ended in May, 1865, although there were hold-out units that didn't surrender until later. BFD. My only
point was that Lincoln died before the war was over, and I used the official surrender of the Confederacy at the date to go by, rather than the
surrender of Lee at Appomattox. But you think you won some rhetorical victory pointing out the date of the surrender of the last hold-out
Confederate forces -- even though in an earlier post of yours you chided me for saying Lee's surrender was not the end of the war and that Lincoln
died before its end.

This last post of yours shows just how feeble your arguments are, and that you have to resort to blowing smoke to obfuscate matters. You've lost all
credibility, your point regarding Alex Haley's "Roots" withstanding. Hence I will not bother replying to any more to your specious, pointless
comments. They just don't warrant comment.

is a real stretch unless they are counting the 6 days he
survived beyond Lee's surrender.

the only anti-slavery Lincoln participated in was coercion to benefit the Union troops, nothing more.

Here you are attributing someone's statement to me. I never said Lincoln gave anti-slavery speeches after the war; in fact, I wrote a post that made
it abundantly clear that wasn't the case, and yet you have started a dispute with me over petty, ancillary facts regarding the time line of surrender
of hold-out units, which was never my point in the first place.

Please do not misquote me. It is terribly bad form as well as deceitful.

And to claim that the only anti-slavery lobbying/speech giving/whatever that Lincoln gave was coercion to benefit Union troops is an outright
falsehood. Please let me know how the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, and which was not ratified until after the war was over, benefited
Union troops? And last time I checked, Lincoln pushed to have the Amendment pass Congress.

You keep on bringing up little trivial facts, such as New York state didn't abolish slavery until 1827, and suggest that this somehow undermines the
notion that the Cival War was inextricably linked to the issue of slavery, but then you throw out complete historical fabrications about Lincoln.
What is one to make of this? I'll leave it to the reader to decide...

i have previously explained its relevance, in this thread and many others. if you really want to know, use the search engine provided

i keep mentioning it simply because the entire Southern region is blamed for what occurred regularly in the NORTH.
it was a labor industry ... the South profited from it, the North, used it mostly to comfort themselves, that's the biggest difference.

New York had the biggest, most recognized, weekly slave sale in the country.
this is not news.

the Northern States didn't lead any such thing, the Churches did.
it may have begun in the North but it certainly wasn't exclusively a Northern thing.
and, there was no imaginary morality to it ... it was purely about 'control'.

btw, got any proof for who fired the first shots at Ft Sumpter ??
nah, don't bother, i know you don't and so should you.

Oh boy, now you are citing cases of illegal sex slavery in the US as evidence that slavery continued, unabated in the US. In the case you bring up,
the madame was charged with a crime and an additional statute, The Mann Act, was put on the books. To attempt to claim that slavery went on legally
and unchallenged after the 13th Amendment was ratified is simply false -- not to mention pathetic and possibly delusional. You're really doing
nothing for your arguments, champ.

Oh and proof of who fired first at Fort Sumpter? You gotta be kidding.

The last time I checked the
Charlestonians (sp?) celebrate this fact in Cival War re-enactments. The first shots were fired by cadets of The Citadel -- at a Union re-supply
boat. Forces under Beauregard had laid siege to Sumpter and demanded its surrender. This is all part of historical record; try reading about it
here:

Elliott, Stephen, Jr. (1902). "Detailed report, September 12, 1863". Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion,
Series I. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office) 14: 637–9. Retrieved 2007-11-18.

Detzer, David R. (2001). Allegiance: Fort Sumter, Charleston and the Beginning of the Civil War. New York: Harcourt. ISBN 0-15-100641-5.

I might add that you could also look at newspaper articles from the time. I'd imagine the Charleston papers and other Southern papers touted the
firing on Ft. Sumpter, and gave the details of the incident. I've never heard anyone dispute who started firing on whom at Fort Sumpter -- not even
from Confederacy apologists/defenders. You're a first in this, ace.

I could ask you similarly for proof that the supposed signers of the Declaration of Independence actually did sign it; after all, it might have been
same agent provocateur ploy by His Majesty's government.

And your reason for bringing up New York's state's former slavery history is to prove that the South was alone in complicity for slavery? HELLO: New
York was a free state long before 1859, 1860 or 1861 and it did not secede from the Union, let alone raise arms against the Union. Truly, what
Bizarro-World do you inhabit? When did New York have the largest weekly slave auction? CLEARLY it was before 1827, but probably much earlier than
that.

You have stooped to a new low with this post of yours, chief. You are either extremely delusional or just a troll of epic chutzpah. In any case I am
not going to bother to discuss anything more with you on this topic. Perhaps we are in more concord on Greys and Reptilians, or such, and could reach
accord on these or other matters, but somehow I doubt it...

You made light of my stating that Lincoln died before the end of the war

no, read it again.
i made light of the other poster's (banned) comment about anti-slavery speecheS after the war ended.

ok, so he made one ... whoopdedo ... it was 2 days post surrender.
like i said, if he's counting whatever occurred in those 6 days, then so be it but it hardly amounts to an anti-slavery stance during any part of the
conflict (beginning or end)

and i'd gladly accept your apology for this nonsense ...

YOU SERIOUSLY HAVE A HARD TIME FOLLOWING A LINE OF REASONING

my stance is Lincoln died 6 days post surrender, period.
yes, some fighting ensued and territorial surrenders were forthcoming, however, for all intents and purposes, the CW ended April 9, 1865.

my subsequent point was regarding the 'floating' date of an ending to the war. if we're gonna delay the end by full surrender, then it's more
like late August, when the last ship surrendered in Liverpool.

no time that i know of but neither have i said you did.
i think i mentioned something about black cowboys though

For the record, my understanding is that blacks were not allowed under arms in the Confederacy until March, 1865, out of pure desperation on
the South's part.

don't understand your meaning of "under arms" as they were not "soldiers" but they certainly crafted arms at the armory and
defended themselves and their brethren on the field.
there are plenty of tales, do explore.

any attempt to claim that it was a significant force in 1865 is just downright laughable

no, i was trying to point out your confusion before it got to this point but whatever.

moving forward ...
check your own form at the door (especially the childish name-calling) before commenting on mine.

fyi, the 13th wasn't ratified until December 1865, long after Lincoln was dead

yes, he got it to/through Congress but that was only the beginning.

and, regarding the 13th, ever wonder why it ONLY made involuntary slavery illegal ??
cause voluntary slavery was the overall plan, see any form of coproratism to understand.
if you really don't see it, you aren't looking hard enough.

and all you've offered is opinion.
where are you SOURCES ??
kinda tough to argue opinion, they're much like doorknobs, every house has one but some are better than others

Belle Moore was clearly evident that "slavery" had not ended, even with an Amendment

no more than it has today ... how many current stories do you require before you'll open your eyes to the truth ??

are immigrants employed in 'slave' conditions today ? yes.
are children employed in 'slave' conditions today ? yes.
are adults employed in 'slave' conditions today ? yes.
so, what's better about moving from some slaves to all slaves ??

yeah equal slave treatment for all, is that what you're promoting?

the first shots at Sumpter have NEVER been properly identified, nor can they be.
re-enactments are just that, entertainment.
were we there ? nope.
got a diary from someone who was ? i doubt you do.
how about an eye-witness accounting ?? i've read a few and even they don't know for sure.

so, take your Northern aggression elsewhere, we've been down this road before and it ain't purty.

your 'one-sided-story' is exactly what's wrong with this picture.

SC archives were linked previously had you bothered to look.

New York is not the South, that's why.
never has been but was certainly deeply entrenched in slavery and all that it was ... and there is no escaping that truth. you can try and you can
deny, but it was what it was.

And your reason for bringing up New York's state's former slavery history is to prove that the South was alone in complicity for slavery?
HELLO: New York was a free state long before 1859, 1860 or 1861 and it did not secede from the Union, let alone raise arms against the Union. Truly,
what Bizarro-World do you inhabit? When did New York have the largest weekly slave auction? CLEARLY it was before 1827, but probably much earlier than
that.

because self-righteous antagonists like yourself constantly demean an entire region that participated in a labor industry of which MANY
Northern counterparts equally engaged.
(especially when the DoI and Constitution were crafted ... if you think New York didn't have a say in those constructs, you'd be the delusional one

)

you don't like it, fine. neither do i, however, we can't change it.
you can continue to deny NYs participation in breaking the laws of the land all you want but they contributed to the CAUSES of the civil war
more than most and that's a fact.

it was no different than the prohibition years of the 20th century.
it was all about control.
control of the labor, control of the output, control of the cash flow.
and look where that's gotten us some 150yrs later ... surely, we could have done better ?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.